Opinion
B309689
03-11-2022
In re W.Z., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. Y.L. and D.Z., Defendants and Appellants. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Jesse F. Rodriguez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Y.L. Robert McLaughlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant D.Z. Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEALS from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. 20CCJP02356A Annabelle G. Cortez, Judge. Affirmed.
Jesse F. Rodriguez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Y.L.
Robert McLaughlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant D.Z.
Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.
LUI, P. J.
Y.L. (mother) and D.Z. (father) (collectively parents) have eight children together, all of whom are dependents of the juvenile court. In this appeal, mother and father challenge only the juvenile court's order removing their oldest child, W.Z. (son), from their physical custody. Mother and father do not challenge the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings related either to son or his seven siblings. The egregious facts of this case constitute substantial evidence and amply support the juvenile court's removal order as to son. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
1. The Family
Mother and father's eight children range in age from son, who was 13 years old when the underlying proceedings began, to newborn twins (collectively, children). One of mother and father's younger sons is autistic. Father also has an adult daughter, the children's half sister (half sister).
2. Referral
In early April 2020, a referral was made to the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) alleging father had sexually assaulted and impregnated half sister-his biological daughter-when she was a minor, resulting in half sister giving birth to father's child.
During its investigation of the referral, the Department learned father began sexually abusing half sister when she was 12 years old and the family lived in China. At times, father sexually abused half sister in the bed she shared with son, who slept through the abuse of half sister. Half sister reported "father is extremely controlling and would threaten to harm her if she did not comply with his sexual demands and would state to her that she could not do anything against him because father did not penetrate her, therefore, it was not rape. Upon her receiving her first menstrual cycle, father stated to her she was now a woman and raped her at age 15 years old." Half sister stated father fondled and touched her from age 12 to 15 and, when she turned 15 years old, repeatedly raped her until she became pregnant with his child.
In 2015, when half sister was two months pregnant, the family moved to the United States. Mother discovered half sister's pregnancy two months later, when half sister was approximately four months pregnant. Father admitted his paternity to mother but blamed half sister, saying she "provoked him" to rape her. Mother demanded half sister "return to China to get an abortion" and bought her an airplane ticket to China. When half sister arrived in China, she contacted her biological mother to tell her what had happened. Both her biological mother and mother "agreed that [half sister] would not disclose the rape to prevent legal prosecution of the father." Half sister's biological mother also disclosed father had raped her, resulting in the birth of half sister, as well as another woman, resulting in father being incarcerated in China for three years.
At that time, the family consisted of mother, father, half sister, son, and the oldest daughter. Mother and father's younger children had not yet been born.
Within 24 hours of arriving in China, half sister was back on an airplane to the United States. Upon arrival at the airport, she was detained "by immigration." Half sister was 15 years old when she gave birth to her daughter (father's biological daughter) at an immigration detention facility in Chicago. Eventually half sister and her daughter were placed with a foster family. Father and mother denied father had sexually abused half sister and denied knowing she was pregnant when she was sent to China.
3. Parents' Behavior
During the Department's investigation and throughout the underlying proceedings, mother and father expressed their long-standing fears that the Chinese government not only is spying on them and their children but also wants to poison and kill all of them. It was difficult, if not at times impossible, to communicate with the parents because they, especially father, consistently obfuscated with dire proclamations about how the Chinese government was trying to murder the family. Mother and father often refused to cooperate with the Department and others who were investigating and trying to assist the family, holding steadfast in their belief that Chinese Communist spies had infiltrated every aspect of their life in order to kill them and their children. They obsessively believed almost everyone they had contact with-e.g., doctors, nurses, social workers, teachers, school administrators, law enforcement, attorneys, the juvenile court-was a part of or working for the Chinese Communist Party, all of whom were intent on harming and killing the family.
The record is replete with examples of the parents' paranoia. We describe only a few examples here. Father and mother believed the Chinese government might have used father's DNA to impregnate half sister with his child in order to "sabotage" him. They also believed the "Communist Chinese Party" was "controlling [half sister] asking her to lie against the father to destroy his image" because "they want to kill father and the entire family both in the U.S. and in China." Father indicated "this is the reason why he and mother isolate themselves at home and seek no assistance for the children."
Parents also repeatedly refused to cooperate with Department social workers, claiming they were spies for the Chinese Communist government. For example, when social workers came to the family home to investigate the initial referral, father became extremely agitated and uncooperative, accusing the social workers of being Chinese Communist spies intent on killing the family. Eventually, in order to interview and assess the safety of the children, the social workers called law enforcement. Father was similarly obstructive and accusatory with the law enforcement officers, who eventually handcuffed father and held him in a patrol car while the social workers spoke with the children.
Parents' extreme paranoia negatively affected their ability or willingness to obtain needed services for their children. For example, mother did not receive prenatal care while pregnant with the twins. In fact, she did not know until she was admitted to the hospital that she was pregnant with twins, who were born prematurely and remained in intensive care after birth. After the twins were born, father posted on-line that "the Doctor's advice is not to be followed as the Doctor's goal is to hurt the newborns" and that a Department social worker who visited them in the hospital was "a Chinese Communist agent and trying to murder the parents and children."
Similarly, parents refused to seek treatment and support for their autistic son. Mother and father believed the child was poisoned by doctors (who allegedly were a part of the Chinese Communist Party) when he was born, resulting in his autism. In an on-line post, father stated, "During [the child's] birth, he was injected with certain drug by Chinese Communist spy, as a result he became autistic. . . . Why did the Chinese Communist spy injected [sic] drug to harm my child? They did it to protect the Chinese Communist regime, and power!" Mother and father believed others would also harm their child if they sought treatment for him.
Father also repeatedly and against court orders posted confidential information and court documents on-line. He also consistently filmed and audio-recorded without consent his interactions with Department social workers and others involved in the case. In one on-line post, father stated: "The worker from child protective services just texted us notifying us about the hearing date on 05/01/2020. This is the doing of the Manchu Chinese Communist, trying to have their attorney to fool me and obtain my evidence, and then use the pandemic as reason to have this virtual hearing to make me guilty. . . . The only truth for all these is the Manchu tribe had been trying to deceive, control and destroy America." In another post, father stated: "Yesterday the attorney said I had sexually abused my 8-year-old daughter; and Mrs. [W.] who bullied my daughter . . . is saying I have physically abused my daughter. These two allegations are proof that Chinese Communist had planned [sic] the seed in 2017 to have students bully my second daughter and have teacher to beat up my third daughter to cause them to suffer trauma that changes their personality and wellbeing. All these are to create a reason so they can remove my children on 04/24/2020 and to destroy my family. Look at how far ahead the Manchu Chinese Communist had planned to destroy any capable Chinese according to 'The book of Shang.'" Another time, father posted on-line: "Because attorney, translator, DCFS and the Judge etc collaborated to destroy my family, my wife and me asked to dismiss the attorney: I want to fight my case, but [the juvenile court] was not agreed and wanted appointed an attorney to represent us! This year Manchu Communist Spy has controlled American election, American people need to understand: Communist Spy destroy my family, my children, American to protect Communist evil political power. [The juvenile court]'s appointed attorney would be able to understand?"
Father submitted numerous documents for the juvenile court's consideration, including documents entitled, "DCSF is a criminal group controlled by CCP [Chinese Communist Party]," "DCSF [social worker] is a Chinese Spy," and "Chinese Spies control Wells Fargo Bank to freeze my stock account."
4. Son and Oldest Daughter
Despite parents' obstructive and paranoid behavior, social workers were able to interview the older children. Son shared his parents' views about the Chinese government and spies and was similarly "hyper vigilant with his surroundings." Son was protective of his parents. He denied any abuse in the home or inappropriate behavior between father and son's sisters. Son "stated his father is a 'great father' that only wants to protect him and his siblings. When asked what they need protection from, [son] stated father knows when people or anyone try to lie against them to protect them." Son could not think of anything he did not like about father.
The oldest daughter, who was eight years old at the time, was "quiet and timid." Initially, she indicated someone in the home had inappropriately touched her, although she would not specify how or who. In later interviews, the oldest daughter wavered between denying anyone had touched her inappropriately and specifying she was "sexually touched on her breast and groin area by an adult male" who lived in her home and provided food, clothes, and other basic needs. The oldest daughter's teeth were visibly discolored and full of cavities.
5. Detention and Petitions
In April 2020, before the twins were born, the Department filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition on behalf of the six oldest children (petition). The petition alleged five counts, three of which alleged father had sexually abused, raped, and impregnated half sister and mother knew of father's conduct but failed to protect the children. The remaining two counts alleged mother and father failed to obtain timely and necessary medical treatment for their eight-year-old daughter, whose teeth were discolored and missing. At the detention hearing held soon after the petition was filed, the juvenile court ordered the children detained from parents with monitored visitation.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
In June 2020, after the twins were born, the Department filed another section 300 petition, alleging the same substantive counts as alleged in the original petition, on behalf of the twins (twins' petition). The juvenile court also ordered the twins detained from parents with monitored visitation for mother. Father was denied visits because he had not made contact with the Department and did not appear at the detention hearing on the twins' petition.
6. Jurisdiction and Removal
The jurisdiction and disposition hearing on the petitions was held December 9, 2020. At the hearing, the juvenile court noted, "[T]he sexual abuse [of half sister] was prolonged," and "[T]he sex abuse was repeated, took place in the home." The court found father's repeated sexual abuse of half sister was "so abhorrent, that [father] abandoned any parental role." The court further held: "This does not minimize the risk to the siblings who are of a different gender or are younger. Taking the totality of the factors in the record into account, including the credibility determinations made by the court, the court is finding that [father] sexually abused [half sister], and her siblings are at substantial risk of continued sexual abuse."
At the hearing, the juvenile court sustained counts b-1 (failure to protect), d-1 (sexual abuse), and j-1 (abuse of sibling) of the petition as follows: "On prior occasions, [father] sexually abused the children's [half sister], when the children's sibling was a child. On prior occasions, the father rubbed the father's penis on the sibling's vagina and exposed the father's penis to the children's sibling. On prior occasions, father raped the children's sibling, resulting in the children's sibling becoming pregnant. [Half sister] gave birth to the child. The children's mother . . . knew or reasonably should have known that [half sister] was being sexually abused by the father and failed to protect the children by allowing the father to reside in the children's home and have unlimited access to the children. Such sexual abuse of the children's paternal half-sibling by the father and the mother's failure to protect the children, endangers the children's physical health and safety and places [the children] at risk of serious physical harm, damage, danger, and sexual abuse." The court dismissed counts b-2 and j-2, which were related to the parents' alleged failure to obtain medical treatment for their eight-year-old daughter.
The juvenile court amended each of the three sexual abuse counts to reflect the court's determination that mother reasonably should have known of father's sexual abuse of half sister. Although the precise wording of those amendments differs slightly from one to the other, they all substantively add the same "reasonably should have known" element to each of the sexual abuse counts.
The juvenile court found the children were persons described by subdivisions (b), (d) and (j) of section 300 and declared the children dependents of the court.
As to disposition, the juvenile court ordered the children removed from the parents' physical custody. The court found: "Based on the totality of the facts contained in the record, including the facts noted for adjudication, understanding that for disposition it's a different burden the Department has to meet, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence there is a substantial danger if the children were returned home and there are no reasonable means by which to protect them without removing them. [¶] Reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal." Over the Department's objection as to father, the court ordered reunification services and monitored visitation for both parents. The court addressed reunification services for father, stating: "Given the cohesiveness of this family unit, meaning the mother and the father, it would be almost illusory to say that the mother is getting family reunification services, but the court then denies family reunification services to the father and doesn't give him an opportunity to similarly reunify with the children. The children are close and bonded with their father. The father appears to be close and bonded with the children. . . . [I]t is in the best interest of the children to provide [reunification services to] the family as a unit . . . . Otherwise, only providing services to the mother and not to the father would essentially preclude ever returning these children home. The goal is to reunify the children with the family and the court is offering over the Department's objection family reunification services to the father."
7. Appeals
Mother and father appealed the juvenile court's December 9, 2020 orders.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, mother and father do not challenge the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings and consequent exercise of its dependency jurisdiction over the children. They challenge only the court's order removing son from their custody and care. Mother and father argue substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court's removal order as to son. As discussed below, we find no error.
1. Forfeiture
Father concedes he did not object to the juvenile court's removal order below. Arguably, therefore, he has forfeited the argument on appeal. (In re Anthony Q. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 336, 345.) However, mother objected to the removal order below (as to all children) and son (although not supported by his attorney) asked to be returned to his parents. Thus, the issue was sufficiently raised and preserved for appeal. The Department does not argue differently.
2. Applicable Law and Standard of Review
When a child has been adjudged a dependent child within the meaning of section 300, the juvenile court "may limit the control to be exercised over the dependent child by any parent" if necessary to protect the child. (§ 361, subd. (a)(1).) Section 361, subdivision (c)(1) permits the juvenile court to order a child removed from his or her parent if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child is, or would be, at substantial risk of harm if returned home and there are no reasonable means by which the child can be protected without removal."' "The parent need not be dangerous and the minor need not have been actually harmed before removal is appropriate. The focus of the statute is on averting harm to the child." '" (In re A.S. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 237, 247, disapproved on another ground by Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1010, fn. 7 (O.B.).) In making its determination, the juvenile court may consider the parent's past conduct as well as present circumstances. (In re A.S., at p. 247.)
We review the juvenile court's removal order under the substantial evidence standard of review. (In re Nathan E. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 114, 123.)" 'In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jurisdictional findings and disposition, we determine if substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports them. "In making this determination, we draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the dependency court; we review the record in the light most favorable to the court's determinations; and we note that issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court." [Citation.] "We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment, but merely determine if there are sufficient facts to support the findings [and disposition order] of the trial court." '" (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773 (I.J.).) "In reviewing for substantial evidence to support a dispositional order removing a child, we 'keep[] in mind that the [juvenile] court was required to make its order based on the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence.'" (In re Nathan E., at p. 123; O.B., supra, 9 Cal.5th at pp. 1011-1012.)
3. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's removal order.
In this case, the evidence that supports the court's unchallenged jurisdictional findings also amply supports the juvenile court's order removing son from mother and father's physical custody. Contrary to the parents' contentions, this is not a case where the court's removal order stands solely upon past parental abuse of a dissimilarly situated sibling or where, short of removal, son could be protected from father's egregious conduct and mother's failure to protect.
As the parties agree, our Supreme Court's decision in I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th 766, is instructive. In that case, our Supreme Court addressed the question whether a father's sexual abuse of one of his minor daughters supported the juvenile court's exercise of its dependency jurisdiction over the father's sons. (Id. at p. 772.) The court held it did, concluding the father's repeated sexual abuse (including rape) of his minor daughter in the family home constituted substantial evidence supporting dependency jurisdiction over all of the father's children, regardless of gender and regardless of whether their father had abused all of them. (Id. at pp. 771, 778.) Our Supreme Court explained, "the more severe the type of sibling abuse, the lower the required probability of the child's experiencing such abuse to conclude the child is at a substantial risk of abuse or neglect under section 300. If the sibling abuse is relatively minor, the court might reasonably find insubstantial a risk the child will be similarly abused; but as the abuse becomes more serious, it becomes more necessary to protect the child from even a relatively low probability of that abuse." (Id. at p. 778.)
Although I.J. primarily addresses the juvenile court's exercise of its dependency jurisdiction over five siblings (two daughters and three sons) as opposed to the court's order removing those same siblings from their father's custody, we conclude the decision offers strong support for the juvenile court's removal order here. In I.J., the reviewing courts described the father's behavior "as 'aberrant in the extreme.'" (I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 778.) Our Supreme Court emphasized the father's "violation of trust shown by sexually abusing one child while the other children were living in the same home and could easily have learned of or even interrupted the abuse. '[S]exual or other serious physical abuse of a child by an adult constitutes a fundamental betrayal of the appropriate relationship between the generations. . . . When a parent abuses his or her own child, . . . the parent also abandons and contravenes the parental role. Such misparenting is among the specific compelling circumstances which may justify state intervention, including an interruption of parental custody. (See § 300, subds. (d), (e), (j).)' [Citation.] The serious and prolonged nature of father's sexual abuse of his daughter under these circumstances supports the juvenile court's finding that the risk of abuse was substantial as to all the children." (I.J., at p. 778, italics added.) Our Supreme Court concluded, "[W]hen a father severely sexually abuses his own child, the court may assume jurisdiction over, and take steps to protect, the child's siblings." (Id. at p. 780, italics added.)
Similarly, here, father's behavior toward half sister was unquestionably" 'aberrant in the extreme.'" (I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 778.) Father "fundamental[ly] betray[ed] . . . the appropriate relationship between generations" and "abandon[ed] and contravene[d] the parental role." (Ibid.) He also abandoned his parental role as to the child he fathered with half sister. Father's undeniably egregious behavior justified not only the juvenile court's exercise of its dependency jurisdiction over all the children, but it also justified the court's "steps to protect the child's siblings," including its order removing the children from father's custody. (Id. at p. 780.) Additionally, father's abuse of half sister is not the only evidence that supports the removal order. The record reveals father raped women in China and potentially also had begun sexually abusing his eight-year-old daughter in the family home here.
Substantial evidence also supports the juvenile court's order removing son from mother's custody. Mother knew of father's abhorrent behavior but did nothing to stop it. Instead, she enabled father's behavior. After discovering father had impregnated his own minor daughter, mother sent then-pregnant half sister alone back to the country mother and father both believed was trying to kill them and their entire family. Attempting to protect father from potential ramifications of his actions, mother told half sister not to tell anyone what father had done to her. Mother's role not only in protecting father at the expense of half sister but also her refusal or inability to protect her own children from father's behavior constitutes substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court's removal order.
Moreover, throughout most of the proceedings below, both mother and father were obstructive and defiant with, among others, the Department, law enforcement, and the juvenile court. They seemed unable to accept responsibility for any aspect of the harm they had done to, and the risk of harm they had created for, their children. Parents' lack of cooperation and similarly stark lack of insight into the consequences of their own conduct also justified the court's removal order. (See, e.g., In re Maria R. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 48, 71 [parent's refusal to cooperate with child welfare agency and denial that children were at risk of harm supported removal], disapproved on another ground in I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at pp. 780-781.) Although father suggests otherwise in his briefing on appeal, we are not "weigh[ing] in on the merits of" anyone's political beliefs or determining whether the parents' political beliefs exposed son to substantial harm. Rather, our decision is based on the undeniable fact that parents' compulsively paranoid beliefs (whether politically motivated or not) substantially interfered with their daily lives so much so that they were unable or unwilling to cooperate in the proceedings below.
Finally, we are not persuaded by the parents' contention that reasonable alternatives to the removal of son existed. There is no dispute son is properly a dependent child of the court who, therefore, requires court supervision. To put it mildly, mother and father were uncooperative during the underlying proceedings. It is not reasonable to believe son could safely return to his parents, who, instead of remorse and responsibility, had displayed denial and delusional paranoia. Any alternative plan that required even slight parental cooperation was untenable and certainly not a reasonable alternative.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's removal order is affirmed.
We concur: ASHMANN-GERST, J., HOFFSTADT, J.